JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. State of Himachal Pradesh is in appeal before this Court against the judgment dated 7.3.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Sessions Trial No. 08-ST/7 of 2013, whereby the respondent (hereinafter referred to as accused) has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC. 2. The complaint is that learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its right perspective and to the contrary based its findings on hypothesis, conjectures and surmises. The reasoning, the trial Court has recorded while acquitting the accused, is manifestly unreasonable and untenable. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have erroneously been discarded for untenable reasons only on account of they being in near relations of the deceased, particularly when nothing suggesting that they were inimical to the accused was available on record. Cogent and reliable evidence suggesting that after six months’ of marriage, the accused started treating the deceased with cruelty has been erroneously discarded. The evidence showing that immediately before commission of suicide by the deceased, she was harassed by the accused is also erroneously ignored. The deceased having committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage with accused, presumption that it is he who abetted the commission of suicide by her should have been drawn and by holding him guilty should have been convicted and sentenced. 3. Deceased Pooja was married to accused in August, 2010. No issue was born to them out of this wed-lock. The accused, while being under the influence of liquor allegedly started maltreating the deceased after six months of her marriage with him. She complained against such behaviour of the accused to her parents several times, but they sent her back to matrimonial home after making the accused understand not to mal-treat her. In May, 2012, her father PW-1 Ramesh Kumar fell ill and remained admitted in the hospital at Solan as indoor patient. She attended upon him and after his discharge from the hospital went with him to her parental house. Her mother, PW-2 Smt. Uma Devi dropped her at Rajgarh on 24.5.2012 where she used to live with her husband, the accused in rented accommodation and also was running a shop of cell phone repairs. The accused was present in the shop. She attended upon him and after his discharge from the hospital went with him to her parental house. Her mother, PW-2 Smt. Uma Devi dropped her at Rajgarh on 24.5.2012 where she used to live with her husband, the accused in rented accommodation and also was running a shop of cell phone repairs. The accused was present in the shop. He started quarreling with the deceased as to with whose permission she went to her parents house and stayed there. He refused to hand over the key of quarter to her and to the contrary started quarreling with her and hurling abuses to her. PW-2 Uma Devi told both of them to live nicely with each other and not to quarrel and thereafter she returned to her own house. On the same day, the deceased and accused went to their native place at Village Thor Niwar, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur on motorcycle. Around 1:00 AM (midnight), the accused informed PW-1 Ramesh Kumar that his daughter, the deceased had consumed poison and that she has been brought to Solan for medical treatment. After one hour, the accused again called PW-1 Ramesh Kumar and informed that she was no more. The complainant PW-1 Ramesh Kumar, therefore, lodged the report with the police in Police Station Rajgarh suspecting the hands of the accused in consumption of poison by his deceased daughter due to her mal- treatment and torturing on that day when she returned to Rajgarh from the house of her parents. FIR is Ext. PW-1/A. 4. The deceased was firstly brought to the hospital at Rajgarh for treatment. The Medical Officer on duty had informed the police of PS Rajgarh about the deceased brought for treatment in the hospital being a case of poisoning. The information so received in the Police Station was entered in daily Rojnamcha vide rapat Ext. PW-12/A. She expired and post mortem of her dead body was conducted in Regional Hospital, Solan vide report Ext. PW-10/B. In the opinion of the doctor PW-13 Dr. Jatinder Chauhan, she died due to ingestion of poison (organo phosphorous). PW-1 Ramesh Kumar visited Solan hospital where dead body was lying in the dead house. He objected to hand over the dead body for cremation to the accused. The dead body, as such, was handed over to him for performing last rites of the deceased. 5. Jatinder Chauhan, she died due to ingestion of poison (organo phosphorous). PW-1 Ramesh Kumar visited Solan hospital where dead body was lying in the dead house. He objected to hand over the dead body for cremation to the accused. The dead body, as such, was handed over to him for performing last rites of the deceased. 5. The Challan against accused was filed with the allegation that he had been mal-treating the deceased and on 24.5.2012 after being dropped at Rajgarh by her mother, the accused brought her to his native place in Village Thor Niwar in the evening where she consumed poison. Also that she had committed suicide as a result of mal treatment meted out to her by the accused. 6. Learned trial Judge, in the light of the allegations against the accused and on finding a prima-facie case under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC made out against him has framed charge against him accordingly. 7. On the other hand, accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the entire prosecution case either being wrong or for want of knowledge. The deceased was his wife and no issue was born to them, has however, been admitted. The defence of the accused, as emerges from answer to question no. 20, is that his father-in-law and mother-in-law wanted him to live with them as “gharjawain” to which neither he nor the deceased agreed. He was leading happy married life. On the fateful day, they went on motorcycle to their village Thor Niwar in the evening. The deceased received a call from his sister-in-law over his cell phone. He handed over the same to deceased. He observed that the deceased was loudly speaking with her mother while in veramdah whereas he along with his parents and Uncle Ramesh were sitting outside the veramdah. On hearing sound of throwing something outside, he went inside where his wife, the deceased told him that she had consumed pesticide. He, immediately inserted his fingers in her mouth and made her to vomit out. Soon thereafter, without wasting any time, he took her to the hospital at Rajgarh on his motorcycle. His Uncle Ramesh also accompanied him. He got admitted his wife in the hospital for treatment. After some time, on the advice of the doctor, she was taken to RH Solan in Ambulance and admitted there. She, however, died in the hospital. Soon thereafter, without wasting any time, he took her to the hospital at Rajgarh on his motorcycle. His Uncle Ramesh also accompanied him. He got admitted his wife in the hospital for treatment. After some time, on the advice of the doctor, she was taken to RH Solan in Ambulance and admitted there. She, however, died in the hospital. Therefore, according to him, his wife has committed suicide on account of act and conduct of his in-laws who were persuading her to live in the matrimonial house. After her death, a false case has been planted against him. 8. The accused has also examined his Uncle Ramesh Chand to corroborate the plea he raised in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in his defence. 9. The prosecution, in order to sustain the charge against accused has examined 13 witnesses in all. The material prosecution witnesses are father of the deceased PW-1 Ramesh Kumar, mother Smt. Uma Devi (PW-2), sister Smt. Kiran Devi (PW-3), her Uncle Sh. Naresh Kumar (PW-4) and Sh. Sunder Singh (PW-5) an eye witness. The remaining witnesses are doctors and police officials, hence are the witnesses to link evidence. 10. Learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the facts and circumstances and also evidence available on record has concluded that no case for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC is made out against the accused. He was accordingly acquitted of the charge. 11. Sh. Virender Verma, learned Addl. Advocate General has argued with all vehemence that the evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of PW-1 to PW-5 amply demonstrate that the deceased has committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage with accused Jitender and that it is he who alone abetted the commission of suicide by her. According to Mr. Verma, the present is a case where presumption under Section 113 A of the Indian Evidence Act should have been drawn against the accused as he failed to explain that if cruelty and harassment of the deceased at his hands was not the cause of commission of suicide, what prompted her to take such a drastic step. 12. On the other hand, Mr. 12. On the other hand, Mr. B.R. Kashyap, Advocate, learned defence counsel, while repelling the arguments addressed on behalf of the State has very abily argued that mere allegations of harassment and cruel treatment meted out by the accused to the deceased is not sufficient to attribute guilt to him. According to him, in order to make out a case against the accused, the prosecution was required to plead and prove instances of cruelty, its nature and the steps taken by her relations on coming to know about the so called harassment of their daughter at the hands of the accused. Learned defence counsel has also pointed out various contradictions in the prosecution evidence and the improvements made by the witnesses while appearing in the witness box. Therefore, while supporting the impugned judgment, learned defence counsel has sought the dismissal of the present appeal, being devoid of merits. 13. We shall first deal with the plea relating to applicability of Section 306 of IPC in the case in hand. Section 306 IPC deals with abetment to commit suicide. The Apex Court in Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2009 (4) SCC 52 , while discussing the scope of Section 306 of the Code, in the context of abetment of suicide, has observed as under: “8. Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide. The said provision reads as follows: "306 ABETMENT OF SUICIDE. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 9. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.” 14. The abetment of a thing has been defined under Section 107 of the Code. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.” 14. The abetment of a thing has been defined under Section 107 of the Code. The circumstances under which abetment of suicide by a person on being instigated by another person can be inferred have been discussed again by the Apex Court in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2010 (1) SCC 707 . The relevant text of this judgment reads as follows: “12. At the outset, we intend to address the issue regarding the applicability of Section 306 IPC in the facts of the present case. Section 306 deals with abetment of suicide and Section 107 deals with abetment of a thing. They read as follows: "306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. * * * 107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who:- First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." 13. The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long settled was recently reiterated by this Court in the case of Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 as follows in paras 12 and 13: "12. The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long settled was recently reiterated by this Court in the case of Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 as follows in paras 12 and 13: "12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. 13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty." 14. Further in the case of Kishori Lal vs. State of M.P. (2007) 10 SCC 797 , this Court gave a clear exposition of Section 107 IPC when it observed as follows in para 6: "6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence." [See also Kishangiri Mangalgiri Swami v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 4 SCC 52 ] 15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. 17. The expression ‘abetment' has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. 17. The expression ‘abetment' has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause 'thirdly' of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC.” 15. What constitutes an offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code has also been discussed by this Court in State of H.P. vs. Pardeep Singh and Another, reported in Latest HLJ 2013 (HP) 1431. The relevant text of this judgment is also reproduced as under: “10. At the outset it is desirable to discuss as to what constitutes the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. A bare reading of Section 498-A reveals that sine qua non to establish the said offence is subjecting to cruelty the wife by her husband or relative with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or willful conduct of the husband of such woman or a relative, of such a nature as is likely to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.” 16. We may also make reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Manju Ram Kalita vs. State of Assam, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 330 , wherein it has been held as under: “11. “Cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC is to be established in the context of Section 498-A IPC as it may be different from other statutory provisions. “Cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC is to be established in the context of Section 498-A IPC as it may be different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as “cruelty” to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty.” 12. So far as the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the prosecution is required to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that some person has committed suicide as a result of abetment by the accused.” 17. It is now to be seen in the light of the principles settled in the judgments (supra) that the accused has abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased by administering beatings to her and also treating her with cruelty at the pretext of demand for dowry. 18. In order to infer the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C, the harassment of woman should not be mere harassment and rather harassment to coerce her to meet unlawful demand of dowry. In order to constitute cruelty, a solitary instance of harassment is not sufficient but there should be series of acts of harassment of the woman by her husband and his relatives. In this regard, we are drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Girdhar Shankar Tawade vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2002 (5) SCC 177 . The relevant text reads as follows: “18. A faint attempt has been made during the course of submissions that explanation (a) to the Section stands attracted and as such no fault can be attributed to the judgment. This, in our view, is a wholly fallacious approach to the matter by reason of the specific finding of the trial Court and the High Court concurred therewith that the death unfortunately was an accidental death and not suicide. This, in our view, is a wholly fallacious approach to the matter by reason of the specific finding of the trial Court and the High Court concurred therewith that the death unfortunately was an accidental death and not suicide. If suicide is left out, then in that event question of applicability of explanation (a) would not arise - neither the second limb to cause injury and danger to life or limb or health would be attracted. In any event the willful act or conduct ought to be the proximate cause in order to bring home the charge under Section 498- A and not de-hors the same. To have an event sometime back cannot be termed to be a factum taken note of in the matter of a charge under Section 498-A. The legislative intent is clear enough to indicate in particular reference to explanation (b) that there shall have to be a series of acts in order to be a harassment within the meaning of explanation (b). The letters by itself though may depict a reprehensible conduct, would not, however, bring home the charge of Section 498-A against the accused. Acquittal of a charge under Section 306, as noticed hereinbefore, though not by itself a ground for acquittal under Section 498-A, but some cogent evidence is required to bring home the charge of Section 498-A as well, without which the charge cannot be said to be maintained. Presently, we have no such evidence available on record.” 19. Now coming to the evidence available on record, admittedly, deceased Pooja was married to accused Jitender in August, 2010. There is again no quarrel that she took poison in the evening on 24.5.2012 in the matrimonial home and died in Regional Hospital, Solan where she was admitted as indoor patient for treatment. She has committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage with the accused in the matrimonial home. 20. As per the post mortem report Ext. PW-10/B, the cause of her death is ingestion of poison (organo phosphorous). She, as such, has died in an unnatural death i.e. by consuming organo phosphorous poison. The question which needs adjudication by us is that is it on account of her harassment and maltreatment by the accused, she has taken such a drastic step i.e. to commit suicide and thereby to put an end to her life. She, as such, has died in an unnatural death i.e. by consuming organo phosphorous poison. The question which needs adjudication by us is that is it on account of her harassment and maltreatment by the accused, she has taken such a drastic step i.e. to commit suicide and thereby to put an end to her life. The answer to this poser in all fairness and in the ends of justice would be in negative because the evidence produced by the prosecution even if taken as it is does not disclose any specific instance of harassment and cruelty. The allegations that the accused started torturing the deceased while being under the influence of liquor after six months of marriage, are general in nature. FIR Ext. PW-1/A has been recorded at the instance of her father PW-1 Ramesh Kumar. Nothing has come in the FIR that deceased was being tortured for the demand of dowry. As a matter of fact, it was not the prosecution case that the deceased was being beaten up or harassed at the pretext of demand of dowry. Nothing to this effect has come in the statement of PW-1 Ramesh Kumar, the father of deceased and that of her mother PW-2 Uma Devi. No doubt, allegations in the FIR finds corroboration from their testimony, however, if the testimony of PW-1 Ramesh Kumar in cross-examination is seen, he admits that accused and deceased went to their village Thor Niwar on motorcycle, the day when she was dropped by his wife PW-2 Uma Devi at Rajgarh. Though, he has denied that Pooja committed suicide due to she being persuaded by them to live in their house, whereas her husband the accused as “gharjawain” and as she was reluctant to do so, therefore, committed suicide, however, admitted that the accused had removed his daughter, Pooja to the hospital at Solan from Rajgarh. 21. If coming to the testimony of PW-2 Uma Devi, in her cross-examination, she has admitted that the marriage of accused and deceased was love marriage. The accused was running cell phone shop successfully and had also purchased a motorcycle. He had been taking the deceased on his motorcycle out of Rajgarh to different places. As and when they visited their house, the accused used to bring eatables. When her husband purchased Taxi, the accused had given Rs. 5,000/- to him. The accused was running cell phone shop successfully and had also purchased a motorcycle. He had been taking the deceased on his motorcycle out of Rajgarh to different places. As and when they visited their house, the accused used to bring eatables. When her husband purchased Taxi, the accused had given Rs. 5,000/- to him. On 19.5.2012, the accused had gone with deceased towards Anni side to a temple. On coming to know about the illness of her husband (PW-1), they both came to the hospital at Solan on 20.5.2012. She also admitted that on 24.5.2012, at about 8:30 PM, her daughter Bharti called the deceased over cell phone of the accused. It is, however, denied that she asked the deceased to live with them in their house and also persuaded the accused to live there as “Ghar Jawain” and that it is for this reason, she got mentally disturbed and as a result thereof consumed poison. 22. The close scrutiny of the testimony of PW-1 Ramesh Kumar and PW-2 Uma Devi thus reveals that the torturing and maltreatment, if any, of the deceased was not on account of demand of dowry. Whereas, the testimony of PW-2 Uma Devi reveals that the deceased was leading happy married life with the accused. The ingredients for the commission of offence under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC are not at all made out from the perusal of the testimony of both of them. 23. Now, if coming to the testimony of PW-3 Kiran Devi, who claims herself to be the neighbourer of the deceased at Rajgarh that accused once administered beatings to the deceased in her presence under the influence of liquor and that the deceased had complained on one occasion that the accused had been suspecting her fidelity seems to be after thought for the reason that this witness was associated in the investigation of the case after about one month of the occurrence. Otherwise also, her testimony in cross-examination reveals that the accused was residing along with the deceased in the building of one Ranbir Thakur. One doctor, namely, Dalip was running his clinic in the adjoining shop whereas Ranjot Singh Thakur, Advocate also used to reside adjoining to the quarter of the accused. It is not known as to why Dr. Otherwise also, her testimony in cross-examination reveals that the accused was residing along with the deceased in the building of one Ranbir Thakur. One doctor, namely, Dalip was running his clinic in the adjoining shop whereas Ranjot Singh Thakur, Advocate also used to reside adjoining to the quarter of the accused. It is not known as to why Dr. Dalip or Ranjot Singh Thakur, Advocate have not been associated during the course of investigation being the immediate neighbourers of the accused and deceased. Sh. Ranbir Thakur has also not been associated, therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution. PW-4 Naresh Kumar, the Uncle of the deceased is not reliable as it is he who for the first time came forward with the version that she was being tortured and maltreated at the pretext of bringing lesser dowry when no allegations were levelled by the complainant PW-1 in the FIR to this effect. This part of the testimony of PW-4 Naresh Kumar is merely an afterthought and has purpose to implicate the accused in a false case. Had he apprized his brother PW-1 Ramesh Kumar about the allegations qua demand of dowry by the accused from the deceased, it is not understandable as to why the latter has not reported so to the police at the time of registration of the FIR. The evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of PW- 4 Naresh Kumar has also been rightly appreciated by learned trial Court. 24. The testimony of PW-5 Sunder Singh, who claims himself to be maternal uncle of the deceased even if believed to be true only reveals that the accused used to beat the deceased under the influence of liquor. The allegations, as such, are general in nature and not specific. It is thus seen that no case either under Section 498-A or for that matter under Section 306 IPC is made out against the accused. 25. Interestingly enough, the complainant party never made any complaint against the accused to respectable persons in the area or the authorities such as Gram Panchayat and Police Department. PW-1 Ramesh Kumar and PW-2 Uma Devi, both have admitted that they never lodged any complaint against the accused anywhere and with any authority. 25. Interestingly enough, the complainant party never made any complaint against the accused to respectable persons in the area or the authorities such as Gram Panchayat and Police Department. PW-1 Ramesh Kumar and PW-2 Uma Devi, both have admitted that they never lodged any complaint against the accused anywhere and with any authority. True it is that as per the allegations in the FIR and the testimony of PW-1 Ramesh Kumar and PW-2 Uma Devi when PW-2 Uma Devi dropped the deceased at Rajgarh in the shop of the accused, the accused instead of handing over the key of the quarter situated in that very building to her started quarreling and abusing her because of she having stayed in her parents’ house, however, as per the further prosecution evidence that they both went to their native place at village Thor Niwar in the evening and also that PW-1 was also residing at Rajgarh itself with his family, it cannot be said that the accused tortured her and due to that reason she committed suicide. 26. The reappraisal of the evidence in the manner as aforesaid leads to the only conclusion that deceased though has committed suicide, however, not on account of being tortured and harassed by the accused persons. No doubt, nothing has come on record that if the commission of suicide by the deceased has not been abetted by the accused persons, what prompted her to put an end of her life. However, on this score also, no criminal liability can be fastened upon the accused. 27. It is not always necessary that suicide is committed by a married woman only on account of the fact that she was being subjected to cruelty by her husband or relatives of her husband. Sometimes, it is the temperament and approach of a person to various issues coming across in his/her life also to persuade such person to take such a drastic step. 28. True it is that this incident has taken away the life of a young woman, that too, within three years of her marriage with accused in the matrimonial home. The presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, however, cannot be drawn in this case because the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the initial onus upon it that deceased has committed suicide only on account of her harassment by the accused. The presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, however, cannot be drawn in this case because the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the initial onus upon it that deceased has committed suicide only on account of her harassment by the accused. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot also be drawn in this case because it is not proved that the accused used to demand dowry from her and used to torture her mentally as well as physically on this score. 29. As a matter of fact, the present is a case where nothing suggesting that the deceased was being tortured or harassed by the accused persons in relation to their demand of dowry or otherwise and the degree of cruelty was so high that she was not able to understand comparison between life and death and in such a state of mind, chosen the pangs of death, has come on record. True it is that in normal circumstances, no person is expected to take such a drastic step to do away with his/her life that too without there being any cause, however, present is not a case where it can be said that the deceased has committed suicide owing to cruel treatment meted out to her by the accused persons. 30. In view of what has been said hereinabove, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The personal bonds furnished by the accused shall stand cancelled and the surety discharged.